Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1405 (PNJ)

Manoj Kumar Pathak v. State of Haryana

2012-10-05

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 271 dated 21.08.2011 under Sections 147/149/332/189/185/186/506/504 IPC, registered at police station Naraingarh, District Ambala. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 06.09.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.52661 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-27375 of 2012 Contends that it is a case of no injury and that there are only vague allegations of intimidating public servant. It is further contended that moreover petitioner is having no concern with Naraingarh Sugar Mill, enquiry regarding which was pending before the complainant as petitioner was posted as General Manager of Naraingarh Distillery Limited. It is also contended that all the offences except offence under Section 332 IPC are bailable one and, however, it is a case of no injury and no offence under Section 332 IPC is made out. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 5.10.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 06.09.2012. 5. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from HC Rakesh Kumar, that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Pathak is accepted and order dated 06.09.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 8. 7. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Pathak is accepted and order dated 06.09.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.